RealGM

So I recently had a sticky situation in a league I'm commissioner of. I'm pretty confident I did the right thing but I'll feel better with a little affirmation. Going to try to present a bunch of information as neutrally as possible, bear with me here.

First, a month ago:
Team in 1st receives Jokic & Rozier
Team in 9th receives Taurean Prince & Lauri Markkanen

Then, just a few days ago:
Team in 1st receives Durant, Taj Gibson, Dennis Smith Jr
Team in 9th receives Capela, Aminu, John Collins, Collison

We're in a keeper league, standard 9-cat. Jokic is expiring & not eligible to be kept. Team #9 defended both trades by saying he wanted the keepers. There was a lot more discussion but I'm going to omit that so as to not bias your analysis.

Due to being a tight-knit group (we all went to college together) and the fact that we had never had issues with collusion or otherwise horrendous trading in our five years, I had stupidly removed the trade review policy. This is 100% my bad, I've apologized to the league for not being on it, and I regret it but it is what it is.

I should also add that both guys are relatively new additions to the league. They also happen to be close friends. 1st & 9th is an approximation, I think at the time of the 2nd trade they were in 3rd and 10th but you get the idea.

Knowing all this, what do you think of these trades? And what would you do if you were commissioner of this league? Keep in mind that due process is pretty important to us, so this wasn't something I took lightly. Like I legit debated what was really fair in the truest sense of the word for about 24 hours before making a decision.

OK, please tell me whatcha think. Appreciate it.

Probable collusion.

Durant is a top 5 player and Jokic is a top 10-12, so even with the expiring, Team in 1st won both trades, got the 2 best players and didn't give up much.

Markk is trending down, and might fall even faster after Lavine comes back.

Do you think it's fair to veto without having had an explicit policy in place?

Believe I'd mentioned that I would review trades at my discretion if it became necessary. But still don't wanna be unfair.

hoopsagain wrote:So I recently had a sticky situation in a league I'm commissioner of. I'm pretty confident I did the right thing but I'll feel better with a little affirmation. Going to try to present a bunch of information as neutrally as possible, bear with me here.

First, a month ago:
Team in 1st receives Jokic & Rozier
Team in 9th receives Taurean Prince & Lauri Markkanen

Then, just a few days ago:
Team in 1st receives Durant, Taj Gibson, Dennis Smith Jr
Team in 9th receives Capela, Aminu, John Collins, Collison

We're in a keeper league, standard 9-cat. Jokic is expiring & not eligible to be kept. Team #9 defended both trades by saying he wanted the keepers. There was a lot more discussion but I'm going to omit that so as to not bias your analysis.

Due to being a tight-knit group (we all went to college together) and the fact that we had never had issues with collusion or otherwise horrendous trading in our five years, I had stupidly removed the trade review policy. This is 100% my bad, I've apologized to the league for not being on it, and I regret it but it is what it is.

I should also add that both guys are relatively new additions to the league. They also happen to be close friends. 1st & 9th is an approximation, I think at the time of the 2nd trade they were in 3rd and 10th but you get the idea.

Knowing all this, what do you think of these trades? And what would you do if you were commissioner of this league? Keep in mind that due process is pretty important to us, so this wasn't something I took lightly. Like I legit debated what was really fair in the truest sense of the word for about 24 hours before making a decision.

OK, please tell me whatcha think. Appreciate it.

Here is the first thing i look at anytime there is a lopsided trade involving a top 5 player:

-Was the player shopped around before being moved
-were significantly better offers passed up.

I'm going to throw the first trade out... its justifiable given jokic;s keeper status in your league and he did get 2 solid keepers.

Trade #2 to me is very concerning:

1) the value is really lopsided. If you give up durant you cant get 10 times for a dollar. maybe 4 quarters for a dollar but you need to get some impact guys. if you give an elite player at least get a great to elite keeper

2) if his goal is to get guys for the future, why is he sending out dennis smith?

and then 3) would be did he shop durant before trading him.

thats the big one... if he shopped durant and no one offered more then you cant knock the trade

We have a max of three keepers so I can maybe understand giving up DSJ, but generally I think your points stand.

There was definitely no shopping, the general vibe from the rest of the league was anyone would have given him much more than that. I personally have Marc Gasol and Gary Harris who can be kept for $12 each, I'd have given either up AND a better player than Clint Capela.

I can understand the first offer because it's a keeper league and he's basically taking a chance on two players for one. but good Lord that Durant trade is atrocious. Veto the **** outta that one.

Jokic is a 2 for 1 player .... at the time early in the season Markenan is an unknown not proven ... so the trade should have been vetoed ... Jokic for nothing is what happen Then Durant for Houston Center is a nothing trade unless your in a points league and reward for double doubles ... you said cat9. League style ...

These guys was Stacking ... if this was a money league it’s illegal ... at the end of season near playoff chase it’s known as dumping loosing team marking a playoff team stronger .

Collusion as LM ... you would write a post and have the league member veto the trade to not make you look so evil...

Also you might find it easier to lower the veto limit down to 3 less pressure on the LM ... but this method can be abused for petty Reasons .. when money is on the line . I know I’m late but this tad bit will help a lot

Thanks for all the replies. Most of the league was in agreement that the trades were questionable at best. The hang-up really became whether it was fair to review the trade retroactively when we hadn't had a policy in place.

I ultimately decided that because vetoes aren't really punitive (like you just get your players back, it's not like you lose a draft pick or something so what's the big deal), it was better to be a bit unfair in that respect than to have a league where unfair trading was throwing the championship.

The #9 guy had a dramatic public fit... snarky team name change & team photo, repeated name-calling, and just absolutely dominating our group conversation to the point that no one wanted to participate at all, just throwing a fit for a couple days, refusing to acknowledge any of his over-the-top behavior whatsoever... it was pretty epic. Like he acted like vetoing his atrocious trade was the most corrupt draconian fascist thing any fantasy commissioner has ever done. They both eventually resigned in protest and I refunded their money (it is a money league). Byeeeee.

All of this is to say seeing other people who give a **** about fantasy basketball affirm that the trades don't hold up to the light of day is just a little satisfying, even if I already pretty much knew that inside.

Moving forward, we switched to a trade review policy I actually really like. Any suspect trades are nominated for review. Trade partners are allowed to defend themselves. we then have 48 hours to vote YES to veto or NO to not, simple majority of votes wins. So if two trades partners vote NO, three people vote YES, everyone else abstains, the veto passes. I think having to basically vote in public will help prevent vindictive vetoes. But we also don't have to worry about too many people having tuned out at the end of the year.